The meaning of the word system in opening names

@Akbar2thegreat
regret enabling my wall of text... but completely not wrong your are.

you mean the nature of the question makes the context. Yes i agree, that what an be done about the statements depend on the type of question. Thanks for making it precise, because i took another angle which i rephrase more concisely below, but likely to not be digestible to casual audience.

I was more down to FEN and SAN. about position full information, the FEN, if were to make all statements having the position as dependent variable.. then the statements truth would be having the chess position state space as domain, and truth useful definition** values set or space as image. Then context would be the domain subsets that correspond to the elements of the truth or useful value set.

This is minimalistic terminology for set math. There are possibly other math subcultures that could have added their own jargon like economical game theory, but i am not educated enough in those. so i use a common language that all math subculture should get.. (and shout but this is already what we use, and it is called such and such. if this is too itchy i welcome the diversity of terminology, big fan of synonyms that can increase the sharing of the gist of ideas i want to share).

** the usual Bit set, but more interestingly and probably more data friendly type of set, more sizable ordered sets, even dare I say it a continuum, or the in silica version of it, also one might include some action space as co variable domain, on top of which decision can be made, and then have statements that would make sense of the cross product for those, if i did not cross my eye looking at sets).

I keep the cherry on top for another time.. small steps.. i tend to pack it all because it comes that way.... i need questions to help me break stuff down.. and good faith argued critical comments are also questions that could help.

@Akbar2thegreat said in #40:
> I meant like if the context is 'what is result of perfect chess game' then we can give our opinions though majority of people believe that White doesn't have enough move advantage to win.

rather not definitive, unless the question asks for opinion. an opinion can be definitive in its form.

> And if context is 'which opening is better of the two' then there can be multiple sub-context: The one that gives better advantage (or better position) or the one which is more often played.

So if question does not specify the sub-context, the communication process will get various types of answers.^
but if the question also specifies sub context, you would say there is a definitive answer for each? I would say yes to often played because SAN and FEN are usually well specified data, specially in digital form, and we could look at databases of games or the opening explorer (if we knew how many duplicate games ever get thrown out of book digestions at lichess scale and Max-ply , message to lichess).

However for the first sub-context, the advantage, then there are more sub-contexts such a depth of position where the question is asked... and my understanding of opening data/theory is not clear about such calls. I wonder if there are not rumor dynamics going on... Do we have experimental data supporting claims at any depth of accepted (how to know also the degree of acceptance, in such subjective potential) odds (besides the real population data of recorded games, but those are not complete tree exploration). I don't want to be nit picking. i do have some ignorance about the uncertainty of opening data knowledge, and i have NOT seen any methodical explanation as to how that has ever been controlled. But i would take some one player more experienced than me opinion as more probable truth than my known ignorance.. But that's not definitive. there could be more experienced or that experience might be missing parts of the tree branch in question...

> The term context is itself very broad. So, I included everything by defaut and hence didn't miss out on anything.

a communication tactic of mine as well, i realized, i have been doing. but see above post for the angle I was thinking you were thinking...

> How to develop pieces might be too open but how to win in 2 moves is straightforward. Understood, right?

win? you mean mate? or some material advantage (as predictor of winning odds further?). I find mate puzzles to be the most definitive answer producing questions....

I now understand that you were talking about the question context. I was talking about the answer context. and more about on board decision making questions given a current position information.

but maybe yours might still fit in my above construct. each statement having its own relation as described there. so the type of question might be controllable by the value set definition.. i am speculating trying to find a connection.. but that it my first idea right now. I was also thinking of on board decision rules that chess theory had been developing. how to make explicit the contexts of the past. And proposing a framework for proper theory/data progressing wheel.

more speculative.. needs eyes not mine.
context being for each statement, its pre-image (i might not have the right words. inverse image? f-1 (image) subset of domain? assuming a function of domain to image. a position might not have 2 different value for a given statement
but really even the sub-context thing could be handled if we allowed set relations, not just functions.... (that is the first idea in math attempt) might need fixing by other math speaking lichess users inclined to help. or at least checked for making sense. i am error prone when forced to stringify things, maybe otherwise too, but more obvious there.... collisions.

edit: afterthought, i still have ideas not spilled... set relation might be shocking, so we could make a more complicated image, alas, more precise sometimes leads to that, instead of the value set, we could consider a probability space on that value set (which could be caricatures as set relation, by putting some confidence interval and averaging (the probability itsefl) over that interval).. i think i make more sense to some math entity watching me, but i am not being very friendly to readers.. i apologize... i am also learning to explain difficult things.. and the audience might come from anywhere, in the chess population.. hard to check all the boxes.. so stormy waltz monologues. pick and chose paragraphs...